From DTN News: NAWG Reverses Policy on Climate Change
A statement Friday from Karl Scronce, National Association of Wheat Growers president and a wheat producer from Klamath Falls, Ore.:
“The NAWG Board of Directors met this morning via conference call and voted 26 to 2 to approve a new resolution regarding greenhouse gas regulation. The Board also voted 24 to zero to remove existing resolutions relating to greenhouse gas regulation and an agriculture cap-and-trade program.
“The new resolution reads:
“’NAWG is opposed to greenhouse gas legislation or regulation that has a negative impact on production agriculture. NAWG will strive for a net economic benefit to farmers, agriculture and food production. We believe neither greenhouse gas regulation nor legislation should take effect until the major carbon emitting countries of the world have agreed to regulate their own greenhouse gases in a like manner to ours. NAWG urges USDA to do a detailed economic analysis of any legislation or regulation before it becomes law. Furthermore, NAWG will oppose EPA regulation and will work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.’
NAWG staff and grower-leaders plan to continue to work on this issue to achieve an outcome that the Board feels is in the best interest of our grower-members. “
Here is the official NAWG resolution statement at the NAGW website
h/t to WUWT reader “CuriousGeorge)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jerry Lee Davis (12:32:52) :
“I wonder if NAWG ever considered the alternative name “Domestic Association of Wheat Growers.” ”
I wonder what title they would then give to the second-in-command of the Association.
“I wonder what title they would then give to the second-in-command of the Association.”
Deputy DAWG?
Doesn’t mention the real problem, which is wheat is the crop most at risk from global cooling.
Historically, cold periods reduced wheat production and caused famine.
And as for CO2 not being plant food. Plants synthesize and animals metabolize (with a few exceptions). A plant denied CO2 will stop growing and then die. Just like an animal would if denied food.
CO2 is plant food in exactly the same way a hamburger is human food. To claim otherwise is just scientific ignorance.
Cold record from 1901 crushed:
http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/how-cool-is-that-record-from-1901-falls/
photosynthesis
6H2O + 6CO2+ Light Energy —-> C6H12O6+ 6O2
6 molecules of water + 6 molecules of carbon dioxide —>1 molecule of glucose + 6 molecules of oxygen
CO2 looks like plant food to me.
I infer that NAWG’s leaderships was hustled into hopping aboard the science-is-settled bandwagon and has since been getting pushback from its membership, causing it to reconsider its stand.
I hope this is a straw in the wind, and that similar belated pushbacks are occurring in other organizations.
Its indicative of the slick politicking of the CAWGers, both tactically and strategically, that they’ve managed to enlist so many groups’ Boards and Managements before a reaction occurred. They almost put one over on the public.
“”” RW (12:19:26) :
Why should anyone other than wheat growers have any interest in what a wheat growers lobby organisation has to say?
Ray, I think you’ve been taken in by the “CO2 is plant food” propaganda. CO2 is no more plant food than O2 is human food. “””
Where does all that carbon in plants come from if CO2 is not plant food. Just imagine you are a hydroponic gardner essentially growing plants in air (and water) much like a bromeliad; how are you going to get carbon to make plant material if CO2 isn’t the source of it ?
Just asking; I’m sure you have a good explanation RW.
Kum Dollison: A drop in global temps. that much is amazing if you look at where temperatures seem like they should be from the SST run-up starting a few months back. Or maybe declining solar output is messing with that mechanism or something, the recent volcanic activity, the effect of 1998 wearing off ect…
Anyway, my state of Kansas is pretty much in the epicenter of the wheat industry (along with North Dakota) so good for them trying to step back from cap & trade for now.
More AGW propaganda in the local paper:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090904/ARTICLE/909041053
Farmers. Gotta Luv ’em. Always quick to change when they see what the weather is really doing…
RW (12:19:26) :
Why should anyone other than wheat growers have any interest in what a wheat growers lobby organisation has to say?
Well, for starters, anyone who eats wheat, noodles, bread, …
There is a very direct connection between weather, government policy, farmers actions in response, and the price of your food.
Ray, I think you’ve been taken in by the “CO2 is plant food” propaganda. CO2 is no more plant food than O2 is human food.
Sigh. Have you no clue where the Carbohydrate gets it’s Carbo? From CARBOn in the CO2. Yes, it is most certainly “plant food”.
And it is well established in the greenhouse operations literature that you experience “co2 fertilization” up to about 2000 ppm at a rate sufficient to justify spending money to add the CO2.
So, in summary:
No CO2, No Carbohydrate.
Got it?
(If you would like to argue that a gas can not be a fertilizer: First, please look up the TONNAGE of anhydrous ammonia applied as fertilizers to croplands each year. That is not the watery stuff you clean windows with. Anhydrous NH3 is a gas at STP and is sometimes used in refrigeration units as a refrigerant gas since it stays a gas to low temperatures but can be liquified under modest pressures. It is carried in tanks on the tractor and injected into the soil with nozzles as a pressurized liquid, where it promptly evaporates to a gas that mostly adsorbs onto the soil particles and partially absorbs into any moisture in the soil. Gas, as fertilizer, is very well attested. Second, try growing a photosynthetic plant in a zero CO2 atmosphere. Third, measure growth rates as you ramp the CO2 ppm from 100 to 2000 ppm; or just consult the published peer reviewed literature.)
Now if you want the advanced course… do the math on how much CO2 is sucked out of the air by an acre of trees (or wheat) and ask how long it would take to suck the air to “empty” of CO2. Then ask why is the air not at zero CO2. Then look up the lower bound at which plants stop growing due to CO2 starvation. I did.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/
My conclusion is that the 2xx ppm level, where xx is below about 50, is darned near the lower limit for reasonable growth in the C3 metabolism plants (which may explain why C4 plants started to evolve when they did – they can work a bit more efficiently with lower CO2, but only a bit.)
That implies that the world plant growth is strongly CO2 limited and that plant variations (cover, extent, tonnage, growth rate) are far more important than a whole lot of other things in stabilizing CO2 levels. And they stabilize it at the onset of starvation levels for plants (as evidenced by their dramatic response to CO2 fertilization. See the graph in the link).
CodeTech (12:35:24) :
Meanwhile, GOOD for NAWG… next step for them is to create a better name 😉 As more and more groups start reading the fine print and realizing all of this C&T and other regulation is just going to kill them, more will push back.
It starts when one, just 1, stands up and says: “The Emperor Has No Clothes”. Watch for more farm groups to do the same. The truckers will not be far behind. Then come the “ag inputs” folks. Shortly after, the grocers will “catch clue”… And as soon as the first person has to buy an $8 loaf of plain white bread; well, look up the history of “bread riots”… There is a very important historical precedent here for our president…
By the way, if anyone thinks these are “dumb farmers”, I urge them to find out just how many college educated farmers there are, percentage wise. You’d probably be surprised.
My alma mater has an entire major in Ag. Econ. It was a bigger department and more rigorous than the Econ department from which I graduated. I wanted a “business major” but was told that this U.C. Campus did not have one, and since Ag. Econ was almost the same and I ought to just take that. (And they were right – but I didn’t want to be explaining why I had an “Ag” degree the rest of my life, so I “wimpped out” and took regular Econ. I was from farm country and trying to “cut the leash”. Wish now I’d embraced it more…)
Realize that was just ONE of the Ag related majors. (One of the “fun” elective folks would take was “Tractor Driving 10” … for non-majors. Majors got to learn the mechanics and operations of the bigger stuff.) Most of it was biology or related. Some was vet med. We had cows with “portholes” in their sides for feed and digestion studies. Viticulture and Enology was it’s own school (complete with winery and brandy distillery a few stories tall – all glass for observation / instruction. Just gorgeous.)
The Ag College was one of the biggest on the campus. We had 3000 acres+ planted in many crops. And any farm kid with a dad who could pay and the GPA to get in wanted that degree. And not just as a paper chase, but because they learned how to get more money out of less dirt. And they knew they would be making those decisions when they inherited the land.
Look around the country. The number of “Ag Land Grant” colleges is very large, and they crank out a LOT of degree bearing farmers every year. Texas A & M, for example. Even some you may not think of, like U.C. Riverside (not my alma mater) that was an orange / citrus farming Ag school at it’s start. Still has a lot of Ag majors, IIRC. Still big in citrus R&D.
So when the Wheat Growers are meeting, there will be a lot of degrees in the room, and a lot of them will be very technical. (I still shudder when I think of the “soil structure” class I audited – complete with physical chemistry of adsorbed fertilizers and biology of soil organism; including their impact on the soil and the plants therein. Another part of why I decided against Ag. Econ… )
Oh the irony of farmers previously having voted for controls on CO2. Good to see they are facing up to economic reality!
Jerry (13:48:42) :
This is analogous to herbivores (and omnivores) consuming starch, breaking it into glucose (and water) and the glucose is used by mitochondria to power cells. In both cases feedstock (CO2 and sunlight for plants, starch for animals) produces glucose. In both cases glucose reserves are used for power throughout the day and night.
RW, (the other RW, not this RW), if CO2 isn’t plant food, what is it?
A legal word here, on overturning U.S. Supreme Court decisions (they are not rulings, by the way).
Only the U.S. Supreme Court can overturn its decisions. The Court does not like to do this, and seldom does. Generally, many years must pass before the Court will even hear another case that would have a chance of overturning a previous decision.
A famous example is the Brown v Board of Education case, that overturned Plessy v Ferguson; both cases addressed the rights of blacks in the U.S. Plessy was decided in 1896, Brown in 1954, nearly 60 years later. The passage of time, different Justices on the Court that change the judicial philosophy – liberal vs conservative, and changes in society all are conducive to overturning a decision.
At this time, even with Sotomayor now on the court, and even if Stevens does retire and Obama appoints his successor – without doubt another liberal – the Court’s philosophy does not change. It will remain the Kennedy Court, because Justice Kennedy so often represents the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision. The conservatives on the Court are Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts. Presently, the liberals are Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor. Justice Kennedy votes both liberal and conservative.
It is no accident that liberal Justice Souter waited until a liberal Democrat (Obama) was president before he retired. It is also no accident that liberal Justice Stevens does, too, assuming he does indeed retire very soon.
RW … though I’m sure this has been beat to the ground …
I can’t believe you think CO2 is not Plant Food. That’s funny.
Roger Sowell (14:42:42) :
Thanks for the insight.
The American public should be very worried to have a court that follows the political agenda of the President of the USA.
78% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen. So much for fear of it as a greenhouse gas.
Higher concentrtations of CO2 decrease the need for water consumption for plants to grow. How about that. Farmers have a lot more science behind them than city slickers have. In fact, The urban folk are a disaster when it comes to ag practices. Read some of the wild notions from Waxmman
“NAWG will oppose EPA regulation and will work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.”
That, to me, is the most interesting comment. Thanks for your legal analysis, too, Roger.
Personally, I think the power ceded to bureaucracies such as the EPA is unconstitutional in the first place, but that’s just my opinion.
Oh, and RW, I’m assuming you just forgot to find out exactly how photosynthesis works and what it’s purpose is, correct? Hehe…
Mark
Climate change is a crock… we all know that the moon has more influence than my neighbour’s SUV! When will people learn! (PS The moon’s not welcome at my house any more… I am a man of principles!)
Mark T, and Ron de Haan, thanks fellows. Glad I could contribute.
Mark T, re unconstitutional power ceded to bureaucracies such as EPA. This is constitutional, if it is done properly. The reasoning is that the business of the government is so vast and so specialized that the elected officials, Senators and Representatives in the House, cannot possibly “do it all.” Thus, specialized agencies were established, sometimes known as the fourth branch of government. Where it gets tricky is the Agencies have power to write regulations, police those regulations, and hold quasi-judicial hearings on those regulations — this is NOT separation of powers. Parties brought before the Agency’s judicial arm can appeal an adverse ruling into the appropriate court.
Recently all this was seen in action as President Bush established new government agencies such as the Transportation Security Agency for frisking airport passengers, and Obama is proposing a few, too.
There’s also an international trade aspect with this. Assuming a cap&trade passes that results in a net increase in input costs, farmers will demand some kind of arrangement to offset their costs. Without it some domestic producers would face stiffer competition from foreign producers, who may very well be on the receiving (handout ) end of international carbon credits (subsidy). In effect our farmers (and consumers) would be paying foreign farmers to compete with our domestic farm industry. This is especially true of imported fruits and veggies and other farm products that are traded internationally. If there is no subsidy, tax break, etc. to offset additional cost they will have to raise wholesale prices. Either way, the consumer can expect higher prices at the supermarket if any kind of bill imposes additional cost on producers in this country.
I know the talk is that such costs could be offset thru “efficiency”, etc., but there are limits to efficiency and yield and there’s damn little “fat” left in the system.
Could even develop into a trade war.
Bill McClure (13:30:22) : I applaud you for mentioning how the USDA will be regulator for agricultural-impacted parts of the Cap&Trade bill rather than the EPA. Pushed by Representative Peterson from Minnesota, this switch of responsibility is a huge relief to agricultural interests — the EPA is not thought of fondly in most farming circles, but the USDA is a dear friend with huge benefits. This move has been apparently neglected by MSM.
Deanster (14:48:59) :
No, no – the CO2 has been beaten through the stomata and into the chloroplasts. Plants release CO2 into the ground through respiration since roots grow where the sun don’t shine. 🙂
RW. Thank for for your information regarding the uselessness of CO2 for life. I have now returned my CO2 incubator to the manufacturer, as I obviously was conned into thinking that my laboratory cell cultures require it (strange how those same cultures are now dying).
Roger Sowell (15:12:56) :
Where it gets tricky is the Agencies have power to write regulations, police those regulations, and hold quasi-judicial hearings on those regulations — this is NOT separation of powers.
This is more of my problem rather than the simple existence of these agencies. The President can essentially bypass the legislative branch through use of agencies such as the EPA (since they serve at his behest), which is unconstitutional. If they were serving merely as advisors to Congress and/or the President, I would not mind, but that is clearly not the case.
Mark
Wheat farmers will fold on this issue as soon as they are reminded of how quickly their $2 Billion per year subsidies can be cut from the budget.
It’s unfortunate but people have demonstrated repeatedly that they prefer government handouts to freedom.
If I’m wrong and the farmers stand strong on this issue even after having their subsidies threatened, then it will be an important sign that the Warmer/Regulator alliance is in real trouble.